AMAZON.COM: WA Court Approves $20M Securities Lawsuit Settlement----------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for Western Washington granted preliminary approval for a $20 million settlement by Amazon.com in a class action lawsuit brought against it by Argent Classic Convertible Arbitrage Fund, The Seattle Post Intelligencer reports.

The settlement affects all people who bought Amazon's 6.875 percent premium-adjusted convertible securities due 2010 between February 7, 2000, and October 24, 2000. The court hearing is set for October 20 in Courtroom 15106 of U.S. District Court in Seattle.

ARMOR HOLDINGS: Chosen as Bullet-Proof Vest Exclusive Supplier--------------------------------------------------------------Armor Holdings (NYSE: AH), through its Armor Holdings Products Division, has been selected as the exclusive supplier to replace up to 156,000 Second Chance bullet-resistant vests (body armor) to the law enforcement community as part of a legal settlement reached between Toyobo Company, Ltd. and Toyobo America, Inc. (Toyobo), the Japanese manufacturer of the bullet-resistant fiber ZylonŽ, and a certified class of national police organizations, departments, agencies and officers who purchased certain models of Zylon-containing vests manufactured by Second Chance Body Armor.

The settlement in the Oklahoma state court case of "Lemmings, et al. v. Second Chance Body Armor, Inc. and Toyobo Company, Ltd., et al. (Lemmings)," is subject to final court approval, which the parties anticipate will occur in October, 2005, and follows the recent announcement by Second Chance that certain of its vest models need to be replaced but their poor financial position prevents them from offering any replacement option. Second Chance filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the Western District of Michigan, in October 2004.

Based on information received from Class Counsel, there are approximately 156,000 vests sold by Second Chance which may need to be replaced through this program. Although Armor Holdings is not a party in the Lemmings case, in order to assist the law enforcement community in their efforts to quickly replace their Second Chance Ultima/Ultimax or Triflex vests, Armor Holdings has agreed to offer a special one-time, promotional price for its concealable body armor. Armor Holdings is the largest supplier of concealable and tactical body armor to the U.S. law enforcement community through its American Body ArmorŽ, PROTECH(TM) Tactical and Safariland Armorwear(TM) brands.

Robert R. Schiller, President of Armor Holdings, Inc., said, "As a leader in this industry, we are both pleased and proud to be able to offer the law enforcement community a much-needed solution to this problem. Ensuring the safety of the members of the law enforcement community is one of our most important priorities. It is also a great responsibility which we assume with the utmost care and concern, both in the conduct of our business and in the quality of our products."

The settlement provides various benefits to officers and departments, including a $29 million fund established by Toyobo. The Settlement Fund will provide class members with two options:

The first is a one-time cash payment whereby each class member will receive a pro rata portion of the fund. Attorneys representing the class have estimated the amount of cash each class member will receive as somewhere between $370.00 and $965.00, depending on the number of class members that decide to participate in the Settlement.

The second is an Armor Holdings voucher for the same amount of cash each class member would otherwise receive, plus an additional $25.00 credit provided by Armor Holdings. The voucher, redeemable for up to five (5) years, may be used to purchase any model of American Body Armor or Safariland vest or to purchase any other law enforcement product offered by any of Armor Holdings APEX distributors, including duty gear, less lethal munitions, tactical/SWAT safety gear, riot protection helmets and shields, batons, ballistic resistant enclosures, protective gloves, drug detection and forensic products and other products. Armor Holdings manufactures many of the world's most well-recognized brands of security products, which it offers through a network of more than 500 distributors and agents domestically and internationally.

Scott O'Brien, President of Armor Holdings, Inc.'s Products Division, commented, "We believe the settlement announced by Toyobo and the class action attorneys represents an important benefit to the law enforcement community. We are proud to have been able to contribute by offering both a promotional price vest replacement option and a voucher worth an additional $25 to affected officers and departments. We strongly encourage all affected officers to learn more about this settlement by either calling (877)567-2754, or visiting the settlement website at http://www.zylonvestclassaction.com,and return their claim form before the specified deadline."

Mr. O'Brien continued, "We take great care to ensure the safety and efficacy of our products. As part of that effort, Armor Holdings has established VestCheck(TM), an industry-leading safety initiative geared to raising awareness for proper fit, coverage, maintenance and evaluation of body armor worn by law enforcement officers. An important component of VestCheck(TM) is our used-vest testing program, which began in 2003 and provides an evaluation and assessment of the useful service life of body armor that has been worn in the field. The VestCheck(TM) evaluation process includes the physical inspection and ballistic performance testing of every vest collected, as well as an in-depth review of individual officer wear, storage and maintenance habits. We also feel it is important to act immediately upon what we learn from these tests, which is why we decided last year to reduce the warranty on our Xtreme ZX model and establish a Warranty/Exchange program for officers wearing that vest model. Utilizing our state of the art in-house ballistic laboratory, we believe that since the inception of VestCheck(TM), Armor Holdings has done more used-vest testing than virtually all of the other body armor manufacturers combined. We think it is important to share the information we learn from this testing, so we have shared this data with the law enforcement departments that participate in the tests, as well as with the National Institute of Justice, and we will continue to do so."

AT&T CORPORATION: TX AG Reaches Agreement For Consumer Fraud------------------------------------------------------------Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott filed an agreement in court that acknowledges AT&T's role in overcharging thousands of its customers a total of more than $800,000 for long-distance phone service. The "monthly recurring fees" began appearing on residential bills beginning in January 2004. The Public Utility Commission also approved this agreement on July 15,2005.

According to the agreement, AT&T overcharged 75,000 of its customers a monthly recurring fee of $3.95 per household bill. The company has already refunded or credited the money back to consumers. "The company's correspondence with its customers about this 'charge' was so misleading - and, as it turns out, erroneous - that most consumers were confused at best and deceived into paying it at worst," said Mr. Abbott. "I am pleased the company saw the error of its ways and made total refunds to all affected consumers."

PUC Commissioner Julie Parsley agreed, saying, "Phone companies that continue to bill customers for unauthorized charges must stop these illegal cramming operations immediately, or they will pay a severe price. At the same time, the PUC urges all phone customers to review all their telecom bills - local, long distance and Internet - and eliminate unnecessary and duplicate services to save money."

The Attorney General and the PUC alleged the company's intent was to apply the monthly recurring fee to consumers enrolled in its interstate basic rate plan for current long distance service. However, the company also sent notices of this fee to many other residential consumers who were not required to pay the fee. These included:

(1) consumers who were already enrolled in one of AT&T's other domestic long-distance calling plans;

(2) customers of the company's "Lifeline" plan, which assists certain residents with costs of basic service; and

(3) any AT&T local service customer

Moreover, consumers who reported the apparent billing errors to the company were either told they must pay the charge or were misled about the charges and their rights to appeal the billings. Further, consumers were often subjected to sales pitches about new products and services available to AT&T's customers when they called to make reports.

Under the terms of the agreement, the company may not implement such a monthly fee without clearly indicating to its customers the nature of the charge and how it fits into their calling plans.

ATHEROGENICS INC.: Suits Voluntarily Dismissed, Others Pending--------------------------------------------------------------Plaintiffs in lawsuits filed last January, which sought class action status against AtheroGenics Inc. voluntarily dismissed the actions on July 14, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing, The American City Business Journals Inc. reports.

Atlanta-based AtheroGenics (NASDAQ: AGIX) stated in its filing that the suits in federal court in Atlanta alleged the company misrepresented the results of an inconclusive and limited study of its experimental drug AGI-1067. It sought unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of buyers of AtheroGenics securities September 2004 to December 31, 2004.

Although several other suits filed in New York remain pending, AtheroGenics stated in it's filing that it has "meritorious defenses to the plaintiffs allegations" and it will "defend this matter vigorously." AtheroGenics reported increasing research and development costs and a deeper loss for the first quarter of 2005.

Nearly a decade in the making, the suit was reached in December and needed the approval of two judges since the lawsuit was filed in state court and in federal court. The class action lawsuit against Blue Cross, which was filed in 1996, alleges that the health insurer failed to pass along discounts it negotiated for prescription drugs and other services to thousands of its customers.

The settlement totals $17.5 million. However, after administrative costs and legal fees, the actual amount to be distributed to subscribers is closer to $11.3 million, which will eventually be divided among 116,000 people. Many customers though will see their settlements in installments. Checks will range from $10 to $1,400 in the initial distribution. The first round of checks should be going out by the end of the summer, while a second round of checks will go out by the end of this year or early next year.

At the court, the attorney for Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island stated that the company's agreement to the settlement was by no way an admission of guilt or wrongdoing on behalf of the health insurer. Blue Cross maintains that if the case had gone to trial, the plaintiffs would have gotten little, if anything. The health insurer reiterates that it agreed to the settlement to avoid one, and perhaps two, lengthy trials, appeals, and all of the costs associated with the legal action. Blue Cross adds that it felt it was in the best interest of the company and subscribers to agree to the settlement.

CANADA: Former Soldiers Launch Agent Orange Suit V. Ottawa Gov't----------------------------------------------------------------The Ottawa provincial government faces a class-action filed by a group of former soldiers and civilians in the Federal Court of Canada, alleging they were exposed to Agent Orange and other defoliants at Canadian Forces Base Gagetown, the Canadian Press reports.

The 41-page statement of claim names Kenneth Dobbie, Charles McLeod, Stewart McLeod, Derrick Williams, John Williams and Mary Williams as claimants. Stewart McLeod, of Springhill, N.S., was stationed at the base between 1967 and 1980, and states he was "directly exposed to the chemicals sprayed by the defendant." Charles McLeod, Stewart's son, argues he was born with a variety of illnesses.

Mary Williams, of St. John's, Nfld., was also exposed to the chemicals while her husband, John Williams, was stationed at the base. John Williams later died of cancer. In the statement, Mary Williams argues she suffered from type-2 diabetes and the increased costs of raising sick children, the Canadian Press reports. The document says one of her daughters suffered from a brain tumor and cancer of the ovary; another son died of brain cancer in 1991. Kenneth Williams, one of her sons, died in 1991 of brain cancer. His brother, Derrick, is suing on his own behalf for lost companionship.

According to the claim, Mr. Dobbie worked in the woods as a 19-year-old, clearing brush that had been sprayed with defoliants. "During Christmas of 1966, (Dobbie) began to suffer severe stomach problems," says the document. "Subsequently, he was also diagnosed with toxic hepatitis, stomach ailments, acne, seizure, blackouts and other neurological disorders," according to the Canadian Press.

The suit states several illnesses ranging from birth defects in children to cancer in adults. The chemical sprayed on the woods near Oromocto, New Brunswick allegedly caused the illnesesses. The claim seeks punitive and aggravated damages, but no figure is mentioned in the court document.

The Canadian military has acknowledged that Agent Orange and other defoliants were tested at the base by the U.S. military in 1966 and '67, the Canadian Press reports. A base spokesman has said the testing occurred in two "very short test periods on very small pieces of ground."

However, the statement of claim says "the defendant has never been truthful when inquired about the full extent of the spraying operations that were conducted." The claimants allege that "over one million litres had been sprayed between 1956 to 1984" as part of a testing program to determine the effectiveness of the defoliants, according to the Canadian Press. A group of landowners, who are not named, are also suing for damage to their land.

Brig.-Gen. Ray Romses, commander of Atlantic land forces for the past two years, has said he is confident tests being done on the base will prove there is no reason for concern about the defoliants, the Canadian Press reports.

COLORADO: Government Settles Property Damage Suit For $100,000--------------------------------------------------------------Two-dozen residents of Denver's East Colfax neighborhood who allege their property values were damaged by a chemical leak from the former Lowry Air Force Base settled a 5-year-old class-action lawsuit against the federal government, The Rocky Mountain News reports.

Under the settlement terms, the government, which admitted no wrongdoing as part of the deal, must pay the plaintiffs $100,000, an amount that satisfies any damage claims related to the presence of trichloroethylene, or TCE, a cancer-causing chemical that was used to clean jet engines on the base.

Henry Miller, senior counsel for the U.S. Department of Justice, represented the government told The Rocky Mountain News that both parties agreed it was in their best interests to settle the suit.

Plaintiff Bruce Wheelock, who moved into his home on Ulster Street in 1998, told The Associated Press that he was happy to finally be done with the long-running case. He further said, "It wasn't about the money anyway. We just wanted to make sure the government didn't weasel out of its responsibility."

According to Jeff Edson of the Colorado health department's federal facilities remediation and restoration unit, which is overseeing the cleanup, TCE, which is also found in dry-cleaning solutions, nail polish remover and glue, was first detected in groundwater north of Lowry in the early 1990s. He told The Rocky Mountain News that the 3-mile-long chemical plume stretches north from the former air base to the southern portion of the Stapleton site, going right through the East Colfax neighborhood.

Though residents in the area get their drinking water from the city rather than from groundwater, TCE can vaporize into a gas and seep into basements and crawl spaces. The chemical is capable of causing headaches and dizziness, liver and kidney problems, and even cancer.

Mr. Edson pointed out that no health problems have been documented in the neighborhoods around Lowry as a result of exposure to TCE, but one home and several apartment buildings did register higher than acceptable levels of the chemical a few years ago. Though the government installed ventilation systems at those sites to draw the TCE vapor out of the buildings, many of the residents feared their neighborhood would be forever marred by the presence of the underground chemical plume. Thus in October 2000, they sued the federal government as a group for "loss of use of properties, annoyance and discomfort, and decreased value of the properties," among other claims. The case was about to go to trial when both parties agreed to settle.

Karen Garvin, sister of one of the plaintiffs, told The Rocky Mountain News that she isn't expecting to get rich off of her portion of the settlement, but looks forward to receiving a check nonetheless. "Which is nothing. Not even to pay the water bill to water these dead plants," she said, pointing to wilted vegetation in front of her home.

However, Roger Freeman, an environmental lawyer who has been following the case told The Rocky Mountain News that the settlement amount seemed low, particularly given the fact it still must cover the cost of any legal fees due the plaintiffs' lawyers. He pointed out though that it probably signaled acknowledgment on the part of the residents that because there had been no documented TCE-related health issues in the neighborhood, they didn't stand to make a massive amount of money. "It takes the lawyers out of the equation and gets the cleanup back on track," Mr. Freeman adds.

The remediation process was contracted out by the Air Force to the Lowry Redevelopment Authority, which in turn hired Lowry Assumptions in August 2002 to do the actual work. Joe Aiken, who oversees the cleanup for Lowry Assumptions told The Rocky Mountain News, "We made the off-site plume a priority and did the first treatability study out in the neighborhood where the risk was greatest." He estimates the amount of TCE throughout the entire plume to be around 70 gallons. Last fall, Mr. Aiken tells The Associated Press that the company injected a first round of potassium permanganate, a chemical oxidant, into the groundwater to break down the TCE and render it harmless.

Mr. Edson, with the state's health department, told The Rocky Mountain News that data shows a 50 percent decline in the amount of TCE in the groundwater so far.

COLORADO: Residents Allowed To Sue Subcontractors For Negligence----------------------------------------------------------------A Colorado Supreme Court allowed homeowners to sue for construction defects caused by negligence, saying in a June 26 decision that subcontractors, as well as builders, "owe homeowners a duty of care, independent of any contractual obligations, to act without negligence in the construction of homes," Rocky Mountain News reports.

The ruling was made in a lawsuit filed against several Colorado subcontractors by the Yacht Club II Homeowners Association, which charged that the subcontractors were responsible for a host of building defects.

Denver attorney Cass McKenzie, counsel for the plaintiffs, hailed the ruling, calling it a victory for homeowners. This is important because builders don't actually build homes, Mr. McKenzie, principal of McKenzie Rhody & Hearn, a law firm that specializes in residential defect litigation, told Rocky Mountain News. Instead, builders subcontract the work to framers, carpenters, electricians, plumbers and others.

Homeowners typically not only don't have contracts with the subcontractors, but they played no role in negotiating the contract between the builder and the subcontractors, Mr. McKenzie added. He stated that with this ruling, the court rejected what is known as the "economic loss rule," which generally limits homeowners' remedies to those specified in limited warranties or contracts between the builders and the subcontractors. Those contracts typically provide limited remedies to homeowners, he told the Rocky Mountain News.

However, Ryan Williams, one of the many attorneys on the other side, told Rocky Mountain News the ruling will "have a pretty profound negative impact" on the home-building industry. He said the decision will ultimately drive some subcontractors out of business and increase insurance costs for framers, plumbers, electricians, carpenters and other subcontractors. Those costs will be passed on to buyers, said Wiliams, a lawyer at Messner & Reeves, which represented one of the subcontractors in the case, A.C. Excavating.

The court also ruled that homeowner associations can bring negligence suits on behalf of the homeowners, Mr. McKenzie said. "So if you have 100 condo units in a project, you don't need to file 100 individual suits, or file a class-action lawsuit," he told Rocky Mountain News, because the association can file one suit on behalf of all of the owners.

Dennis Polk, a partner with Holley, Albertson & Polk, in Golden, who has represented builders and homeowners in construction defect cases, said he doesn't think the decision will have a huge impact. "On a scale of one to 10, with 10 being revolutionary and one being 'so what?' I'd give it a four. But it is good lawyering," he told Rocky Mountain News.

COLUMBIA HOUSE: Settles FTC Do Not Call Law Violations Charges--------------------------------------------------------------The Columbia House Company, a well-known direct marketer of home entertainment products, has settled Federal Trade Commission charges that it violated federal law by calling existing or past subscribers of its home entertainment clubs after the subscribers had placed their telephone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry, and after the subscribers had made specific requests to the company that they not be called. Columbia House will pay a $300,000 civil penalty and is barred from making illegal telemarketing calls in the future.

Columbia House markets its home entertainment products to consumers through a variety of membership clubs, including a DVD club, a video club, and music clubs. Consumers who join the clubs receive a number of DVDs, CDs, or videos at a reduced price if they sign on to purchase a designated number of additional products over the next two years. According to a complaint filed by the Department of Justice on the FTC's behalf, Columbia House conducts telemarketing campaigns to existing and former members of its home entertainment clubs, soliciting former members to rejoin one of its clubs and existing members to purchase additional products.

Under the Do Not Call Rule, a company may call consumers whose telephone numbers are on the National Registry if the company has an established business relationship with the consumer, unless the consumer has asked not to be called. Companies with whom a consumer has an existing business relationship may call the consumer for up to 18 months after the consumer's last business transaction with the company. In addition, since 1995, the FTC's Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) has required companies to keep a company-specific do not call list and to honor consumers' specific requests that they not be called. Such a request must be honored even if the company has an established business relationship with the consumer. Companies are not permitted to call former customers whose numbers appear on the National Registry after the 18-month period has elapsed.

According to the FTC, from October 2003 through March 2004, Columbia House placed tens of thousands of calls to former members whose phone numbers were registered on the National Registry, after the company no longer had an established business relationship with those members as defined by the law. The FTC's complaint further alleged that, since December 1995, Columbia House violated the company-specific do not call provision of the TSR by calling consumers who had previously asked that they not be called. The FTC's complaint stated that although the company had implemented procedures to attempt to prevent future calls to such consumers, those procedures had proven ineffective in preventing the alleged calls.

The stipulated judgment and order bars Columbia House from calling any consumer who has previously asked not to be called. It also prohibits Columbia House from calling any consumer whose number is registered on the National Do Not Call Registry, unless the company has received a request, in writing, from the consumer permitting future calls; or the company has an established business relationship with the consumer and the consumer has not previously requested to be removed from the company's call list. The order further requires Columbia House to pay a $300,000 civil penalty. The order contains recordkeeping provisions to assist the FTC in monitoring the company's compliance.

The FTC reminds businesses that, before calling a former customer based on an established business relationship, they must ensure that the relationship has not expired and that the customer has not made a specific request not to be called. Entities that hire third parties to telemarket on their behalf are responsible for ensuring that the telemarketers comply with federal law by downloading the appropriate area codes of data from the Registry; scrubbing their call lists every 31 days; making sure established business relationships are current before calling consumers whose numbers are registered; and honoring company-specific do not call requests.

The Commission vote to refer the complaint and stipulated judgment and order to the Department of Justice for filing was 5-0. The complaint and stipulated judgment and order were filed on July 14, 2005, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, by the Department of Justice at the request of the FTC.

The Commission files a complaint when it has "reason to believe" that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendant has actually violated the law. This stipulated order is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the defendant of a law violation. A consent decree is subject to court approval and has the force of law when signed by the judge.

Copies of the complaint and stipulated judgment and order are available from the FTC's Web site at http://www.ftc.govand also from the FTC's Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. The FTC works for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices in the marketplace and to provide information to help consumers spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish (bilingual counselors are available to take complaints), or to get free information on any of 150 consumer topics, call toll-free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357), or use the complaint form at http://www.ftc.gov.Consumers who wish to file a Do Not Call Registry complaint may do so at http://www.donotcall.govor by calling 1-888-382-1222. The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related complaints intoConsumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to hundreds of civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. For more details, contact Jen Schwartzman, Office of Public Affairs by Phone: 202-326-2674, contact Todd M. Kossow, FTC Midwest Region by Phone: 312-960-5634 or visit the Website: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/07/columbiahouse.htm.

CVS CORPORATION: Suit Settlement Hearing Set September 7, 2005--------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts will hold a fairness hearing in the proposed $110 million settlement in the matter: In re CVS Corporation Securities Litigation, C.A. No. 01-11464 JLT, on behalf of all holders of the common stock of CVS Corporation between as of June 7, 2005.

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Joseph L. Tauro in the John Joseph Moakley United States Courthouse, 1 Courthouse Way, Boston, MA 02210, at 11:30 a.m., on September 7, 2005.

EL PASO ELECTRIC: Suit Settlement Hearing Set September 15, 2005----------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas - El Paso Division will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed $10 million settlement in the matter: In re El Paso Electric Company Securities Litigation, EP-03-0004-DB, on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired the common stock of El Paso Electric during the period form February 14, 2000 through and including October 21, 2002.

The hearing will be held on September 15, 2005, at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable David Briones, at the United States Courthouse, 511 East San Antonio Ave., El Paso, TX, 79901.

ENRON CORPORATION: CA AG Inks $1.52B Energy Antitrust Settlement----------------------------------------------------------------California Attorney General Bill forged a $1.52 billion settlement with Enron to resolve market manipulation and price gouging claims against the architect of gaming strategies that powered the plundering of California ratepayers during the Energy Crisis of 2000-2001.

"After masterminding one of the largest rip-offs in history, Enron collapsed under the weight of its own greed and corruption," said Mr. Lockyer. "Still, with this settlement, Grandma Millie and the rest of California will squeeze justice from this corporate turnip. All things considered, this is a good resolution for the state's ratepayers."

Besides Mr. Lockyer, who represented the people, other California parties to the proposed settlement include: the California Department of Water Resources (CDWR), the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), the Electricity Oversight Board (EOB), Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), Southern California Edison (SCE) and San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E). Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna and Oregon Attorney General Hardy Myers also are parties to the settlement. Before it becomes final, the settlement must be approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the Enron bankruptcy court.

The proposed settlement calls for the California parties to receive an $875 million unsecured claim in the Enron bankruptcy proceeding, plus $47.5 million in cash. The California parties would provide the Washington and Oregon attorneys general $22.5 million each from the unsecured bankruptcy claim. Additionally, Lockyer and the other attorneys general would receive a combined $600 million penalty, which would be a subordinated claim in the bankruptcy proceeding. The amount ultimately paid by Enron under the settlement will not be known until its Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding is completed.

Funds paid to the California parties under the settlement would resolve the state's and utilities' claims for refunds now pending before FERC. The money would compensate businesses and individuals for overcharges, reduce the financial burden of PG&E ratepayers under that utility's bankruptcy settlement, and reduce all utility ratepayers' obligation to retire bonds sold by the state to finance power purchases at the height of the Energy Crisis.

Aside from resolving the refund claims, the proposed settlement would end a lawsuit filed by Lockyer against Enron. The enforcement action alleged the Enron-devised market manipulation games with exotic names such as Fat Boy, Death Star, Get Shorty and Ricochet violated California's commodities fraud laws. Mr. Lockyer's complaint was on hold pending resolution of Enron's bankruptcy proceeding. Mr. Lockyer filed the lawsuit in the wake of the release of audio tapes and transcripts of Enron trader conversations that provided disturbing evidence of the firm's market behavior.

On the tapes, the traders not only brazenly talk about exporting power and gaming the market, they spew profanity-laced boasts about bringing California to its knees, inflicting financial pain on "Grandma Millie" and Enron's influence with President Bush. Seeing profit in destruction, they express hope fires will torch California power lines, chanting, "Burn baby, burn." Additionally, the tapes indicate Enron's top two executives, Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling, had some knowledge of the market manipulation and received briefings on how it enriched the company.

When he filed the lawsuit, Mr. Lockyer noted he was Grandma Millie's lawyer and was seeking justice for her and all California ratepayers. In the complaint, he said, "While the state reeled from the combined impact of sky high power prices, supply shortages and rolling blackouts, the Enron defendants enjoyed massive, unprecedented profits, and extracted millions of dollars in ill-gotten gains from utilities and their customers ... And through it all, the Enron defendants displayed a shocking disregard for the public welfare, as numerous telephone conversations involving their personnel vividly demonstrate."

The Enron settlement is the 10th produced by Lockyer's Energy Task Force, working in cooperation with the CPUC, EOB, Governor's Office, CDWR, PG&E and SCE. The 10 settlements have a combined value of $4.9 billion. Of that total, an estimated $3.64 billion represents ratepayer relief.

ENRON CORPORATION: OR AG Bares Racketeering Settlement Details--------------------------------------------------------------Oregon Attorney General Hardy Myers announced a settlement agreement in the Enron bankruptcy proceedings that resolves claims by the Oregon Department of Justice (DOJ) alleging that, between January 2000 and December 2001, the company engaged in over a thousand violations of Oregon's racketeering law.

The agreement, which settles a large number of outstanding claims in the bankruptcy proceeding, must be approved by the United States Bankruptcy Court in New York State and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).

In October 2002, Mr. Myers filed a claim in the Enron bankruptcy alleging that the company violated state and federal statutes, including Oregon's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). DOJ specified civil penalties totaling over $336 million, asserting the company engaged in a concerted effort to drive up energy prices across the west coast. Enron objected to the claims; yet never denied the allegations of misconduct.

"If approved by the bankruptcy court and FERC, today's settlement will bring some closure to one of the most egregious cases of business misconduct in Oregon history," Mr. Myers said. "Unfortunately, Enron will never be held fully accountable for its role in the collapse of the energy market during 2000 and 2001."

The settlement resolves claims filed by numerous west coast agencies and organizations, as well as the Attorneys General of Oregon, California and Washington. The proposed settlement calls for the California parties to receive an $875 million unsecured claim in the Enron bankruptcy proceeding, plus $47.5 million in cash. The agreement allows an unsecured claim of over $22 million each for Oregon and Washington. Because total claims against Enron in the bankruptcy greatly exceed total assets, all claims will be further discounted before final distribution is made to Oregon and the other states. Currently, the parties to the settlement estimate that Oregon may receive up to $5 million upon approval and payment of the settlement.

For more details, contact Kevin Neely by Phone: (503) 378-6002 or contact the state Department of Justice by Mail: 1162 Court Street NE Salem, OR 97301-4096, by Phone: (503) 378-4400 or (503) 378-5938 or visit the Website: http://www.doj.state.or.us/

FENTANYL PATCHES: Issues Health Advisory Due To Link to Deaths--------------------------------------------------------------The Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) issued a Public Health Advisory regarding the safe use of transdermal fentanyl patches in response to reports of deaths in patients using this potent narcotic medication for pain management.

In addition, a patient information sheet and an alert to healthcare professionals were issued identifying several important safety precautions for the use of fentanyl transdermal patches. These safety precautions include but are not limited to patient education regarding signs of overdose, proper patch application, use of other medications while using the patch, safeguards for children, and proper storage and disposal.

The FDA is conducting an investigation into the deaths associated with these patches. The Agency has been examining the circumstances of product use to determine if the reported adverse events may be related to inappropriate use of the patch or factors related to the quality of the product. It is possible that some patients and their health care providers may not be completely aware of the dangers of these potent narcotic drug products and the important recommendations regarding their safe use.

The Agency is working closely with the manufacturers of fentanyl patches to fully evaluate the risks associated with their use and to develop a plan to help patients avoid accidental fentanyl overdose. For more information, contact Laura Alvey by Phone: 301-827-6242 or 888-INFO-FDA or visit the Website: http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/infopage/fentanyl/default.htm.

GEORGIA POWER: Employees File For Hearing Before Supreme Court--------------------------------------------------------------Seven current and former Georgia Power employees who sued the company for racial discrimination in 2000 recently filed for a hearing by the U.S. Supreme Court, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports.

In 2003, a federal judge dismissed the case, after an earlier ruling denying minority employees of Georgia Power and its parent, Southern Co., the right to sue as a class. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal late last year. The case involved complaints of unequal pay and promotion opportunities for black employees, and a more unusual and incendiary complaint -- nooses left hanging in Georgia Power work sites.

In asking for Supreme Court review, attorneys Michael Terry and Steven Rosenwasser of the Bondurant Mixon law firm argued that the Atlanta federal courts created un-surmountable and unconstitutional barriers to class action discrimination claims.

Georgia Power spokeswoman Lolita Browning told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution that the company expects the Supreme Court to side with the lower federal court rulings, if it decides to hear the case at all. She also said, "This case has been reviewed now at several different layers of the federal court. On each occasion the court has found the plaintiffs' claims and allegations to be without merit and substance."

Though the Supreme Court does not have to take the petition for review, Mr. Rosenwasser, the plaintiffs' attorney, told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution that the court accepts roughly 80 cases a year of the 5,000 it is asked to consider.

According to an attorney for most of the 70 farmers, although no amount was specified, the insurance companies will put the money into a fund to pay claims to eligible people with respiratory problems who live in northern Idaho or Spokane County in eastern Washington.

The agreement covers damages for the 1999, 2000 and 2001 burn seasons and nothing beyond that since in 2002, the Idaho Legislature passed a law prohibiting lawsuits against farmers for field burning, if the farmer followed state smoke-management rules.

Washington prohibits burning grass fields but the practice is allowed in Idaho. Some Kentucky bluegrass farmers have maintained they must burn their fields to shock the soil into producing a strong crop the following season.

Brent Walton, a Seattle attorney representing residents in the class action lawsuit told the Spokesman-Review newspaper, "Ultimately, this practice needs to stop in north Idaho."

Coeur d'Alene attorney Peter Erbland, who represents 50 of the farmers who were sued, told The Associated Press that many growers were unhappy with the settlement decision because they felt they were winning the case. He pointed out though that, "The decision to pay is the insurance companies' not the farmers'."

Bluegrass farmer Wayne Meyer told The Associated Press that he and a group of other farmers had wanted the insurance companies to give them the money to continue the legal fight, rather than settle. "I felt that I hadn't done anything wrong," said Mr. Meyer, a former Idaho lawmaker. "I was legal under the law. And yet I'm paying for damages."

The leader of an organization that advocates against field burning on behalf of northern Idaho and eastern Washington residents was pleased by the settlement. "It's a very positive step forward for public health in north Idaho," Patti Gora of Safe Air For Everyone tells The Associated Press.

The settlement means only one defendant remains in the lawsuit pending in 4th District Court, the North Idaho Farmers Association, an organization that represents grass growers. Just recently though, the association's attorney Don Farley argued before retired District Judge William Woodland that the group should be dismissed because it "didn't own any bluegrass fields. We didn't burn any bluegrass fields." Judge Woodland took the motion to dismiss under advisement and indicated it may be several weeks before he rules.

KENTUCKY: Insurers Dispute $80M Claim For Clergy Sex Abuse Suit--------------------------------------------------------------- The Diocese of Covington's demand that its insurance carrier pay at least two-thirds of its $120 million settlement with victims of priestly sexual abuse is in line with other settlements around the United States, according to lawyers familiar with the issue and a review of other agreements, The Cincinnati Post reports. However, according to them, the diocese's decision to sue for that money is unusual, although not unprecedented.

The $120 million proposed settlement of a class action lawsuit against the diocese calls for at least $80 million to come from insurance companies that covered the diocese over the past 50 years. Though the settlement includes several companies, the main one appears to be Catholic Mutual Group, which has its headquarters in Omaha, Nebraska. The company, which is a self-insurance fund that is part of the Catholic Church, previously said that it was not invited to the negotiations where a final settlement was reached.

Both the Covington Diocese and those who have sued it dispute that claim, saying that the company refused to participate and arbitrarily said it would deny or limit coverage. Due to that dispute, the diocese has sued the firm, and those who sued the diocese have joined in the lawsuit, which is in its early stages in U.S. District Court in Covington.

Though Catholic Mutual has not filed its formal response to the lawsuit it is in the process of doing so, according to its general counsel, Richard Novak. He also told The Cincinnati Post, "That matter is in litigation. We're not going to be discussing that in the media."

Previously, Catholic Mutual has participated in other settlement talks. According to Angela Ford, a Lexington attorney who settled 27 cases against the dioceses of Lexington and Covington for $5.2 million, a representative of the company was intimately involved in the discussions. She pointed out to The Cincinnati Post that the insurance, which paid $3.23 million on the claims, was instrumental in reaching an agreement. She also told The Cincinnati Post, "At the time we were negotiating, (the diocese) made it clear that we were approaching what they could award my clients." Having insurance "allowed them to increase the amounts of the financial awards to each person," she further said.

Additionally, she also told The Cincinnati Post that Catholic Mutual was specific about what claims it would pay - those for which the diocese had legitimate coverage, and for which no compelling legal argument could be made against. The church agreed to pay the rest of the claims, Ms. Ford said.

Barbara Bonar, a Covington attorney who has settled about a dozen claims against the diocese, told The Cincinnati Post that whether insurance would cover the agreement played a major role in how much the diocese was willing to pay. But that's the case in almost any lawsuit involving liability, she pointed. Ms. Bonar also told The Cincinnati Post that she doesn't know how much of her clients' settlement money came from insurance and how much was paid directly by the diocese. "I was never told that," she said. "It really didn't matter to myself or my client."

According to the ODI, on certain heavy-duty class 8 trucks, equipped with Holland Air Suspension Systems, a transverse beam casting may fracture under normal loads. If a casting breaks when the vehicle is traveling on a roadway there is the potential for pieces of the casting to become projectiles and the suspension's transverse beam may drop down low enough to contact the road surface. This will cause sparks that could potentially ignite and cause a fire.

As a remedy dealers will inspect and replace the defective transverse beam assemblies.

For more details, contact Mack by Phone: 610-709-2131 or the NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or 1-800-424-9153, Web site: http://www.safecar.gov.

According to the ODI, if certain passenger vehicles are parked and the engine is operated at high RPM'S for an excessive length of time, some of the parts around the exhaust system can melt and produce a variety of malfunctions. Problems caused by the excessive heat build-up can range from inoperative oxygen sensor, neutral switch and back up lights, problems with the parking brakes, malfunctions of the gas gauge and/or possible fuel leaks resulting from heat damage to the fuel tank. Fuel leakage, in the presence of an ignition source, could result in a fire.

For more details, contact Mazda by Phone: 1-800-222-5500 or the NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or 1-800-424-9153, Web site: http://www.safecar.gov.

Mr. Edmondson's Consumer Protection Unit is currently investigating the scam in which consumers receive an Award Claim Notification from Nationwide Payment and Security, Inc. (NPSI) of Salt Lake City, Utah. With the notification also comes a counterfeit cashier's check and a request for the consumer to call NPSI's office to claim funds.

"One person has already reported receiving a $4,200 check from this company," Mr. Edmondson said. "She contacted our office to verify its authenticity, but our investigators have thus far been unable to track down the company who claims to have sent the check."

He added his investigators now believe NPSI is sending out counterfeit cashier's checks in the hopes of fraudulently collecting surcharges and processing fees from unsuspecting consumers. "The consumer who called us did exactly the right thing," Mr. Edmondson said. "Had she paid the company the money for the 'surcharges' and 'processing fees,' she would've been left holding only a counterfeit cashier's check and a smaller balance in her bank account."

Mr. Edmondson said his office is currently investigating the scam, and is asking others who have received the offer from NPSI to contact his Consumer Protection Unit at (405) 521-2029. "We are working to track down this company," he said. "In the mean time, we want to remind consumers of the old adage, 'if it seems to good to be true, it probably is.' In this case, it definitely is."

For more details, contact the Office of the Attorney General by Mail: 2300 N. Lincoln Blvd, Ste 112, Oklahoma City, OK 73105 by Phone: 405.521.3921 or 918.581.2885 or visit the Website: http://www.oag.state.ok.us/.

NORTH DAKOTA: ND Court Sends Resident To Jail For Consumer Fraud----------------------------------------------------------------A Bismarck, North Dakota man has been sentenced to six months in the county jail for fraudulent vacuum cleaner sales in North Dakota. Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem brought the action against Terry Gourneau after Gourneau violated an agreement lastyear to discontinue sales in North Dakota.

"Based on complaints received by our Consumer Protection Division, Mr. Gourneau made a practice of targeting elderly victims, arriving uninvited at their homes and not leaving until he sold a vacuum cleaner at several times over retail value," Mr. Stenehjem said.

All of the complaints were from consumers over the age of 65 and half were 80 years or older. "Mr. Gourneau intimidated his victims, who often felt that he would not leave untilthey wrote a check," said Mr. Stenehjem. "Mr. Gourneau also misled elderly consumers into believing they were buying new machines when he actually recycled trade-ins from previous unlawful sales. He also failed to notify consumers of their right to cancel the sale within 15 days, which is required under state law."

District Court Judge Bruce Romanick found Mr. Gourneau in contempt of court and granted him credit for 11 days of jail time already served. Judge Romanick suspended the remainder of the six month jail term on the condition that Mr. Gourneau cease all sales in North Dakota and make payment of $6,000 to the Attorney General.

"I will not tolerate these fraudulent and abusive sales practices directed at our elderly consumers, and I'm very pleased the Court recognized the seriousness of Mr. Gourneau's illegal conduct," Mr. Stenehjem said.

Assistant attorney general Todd Sattler of the Attorney General's Consumer Protection Division handled the case. Consumers with questions may contact the Consumer Protection Division by Phone: 701-328-3404, or 1-800-472-2600 (toll-free) or visit the Website: http://www.ag.state.nd.us/.

PAYPAL INC.: Plans to Make Settlement Payments by September 30--------------------------------------------------------------PayPal Inc. notified claimants in the In Re PayPal Litigation class action case that the settlement payments would be deposited automatically into their PayPal accounts.

The Claims Administrator is planning to make payments in three circumstances:

(1) If a claimant filled out a Statutory Fund Claim Form, then the settlement payment will be automatically deposited into the claimant's PayPal account by July 31, 2005.

(2) If the claimant filled out a Short Form Claim Form, then the settlement payment will be automatically deposited into the claimant's PayPal account by August 31, 2005.

(3) If the claimant filled out a Long Form Claim Form, those settlement payments will be processed as soon as they are approved by the Court. The Claims Administrator expects to have the settlement by September 30, 2005.

According to PayPal claimants will receive an e-mail message notifying them when the settlement payment has been deposited into their account.

Additional information about the litigation and the settlement is available at no charge at https://www.paypal.com/settlement-faq/.

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: To Settle Overbilling Claims For $41.9M---------------------------------------------------------------PricewaterhouseCoopers agreed to pay $41.9 million in civil penalties to settle claims that it over-billed the government for travel-related expenses, WebCPA reports.

A lawsuit was initially filed in 2001, alleging violations under the federal False Claims Act. The suit prompted an investigation by the United States Attorney's office related to bills paid directly by the Defense Department and other federal agencies that used the prominent accounting firm, as well as inflated bills passed on to the government by contractors working on federal projects. A company spokesman told Reuters that PwC had already changed the policy before becoming aware of the government investigation.

The U.S. Justice Department announced the settlement on Monday.PricewaterhouseCoopers previously paid $54.5 million to settle its share of a class-action lawsuit over travel-billing issues in another case filed in 2001 in state court in Texarkana, Arkansas, which accused the firm and others of over-billing clients by charging them the full face amount of travel costs, while receiving back-end rebates from vendors, WebCPA reports.

QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Notice Program Starts For Fiber-Optic Suit----------------------------------------------------------------A class action notice program that was ordered by the Illinois Circuit Court for St. Clair County to those who own or have owned property underlying or next to railroad rights of way where Qwest fiber-optic cable was installed was set into motion recently. Notices will be mailed to at least 12,500 landowners in Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio and Wisconsin, and widely published in the media.

The notices are a result of the Court establishing, or "certifying," a class action lawsuit against Qwest Communications International, Inc., Qwest Communications Corporation, USLD Communications Corporation and Qwest Network Construction Services involving the use and operation of the fiber-optic cable.

This lawsuit is about whether Qwest unlawfully trespassed on land owned by Class Members. Qwest installed fiber-optic cable on railroad rights of way throughout the eight states involved in this class action. Qwest made contracts with railroads and paid money to railroads to get permission from the railroads to install the fiber-optic cable. Qwest did not get permission from the landowners who owned the land under or next to the railroad right of way. The lawsuit claims that the agreements that Qwest had with railroads did not give them the rights they needed to lawfully use the property without also getting permission from the landowners in the Class.

Qwest denies the claims against them, and claim that Class Members are not entitled to compensation.

Affected landowners may choose to exclude themselves from any potential compensation that may result if Qwest is found liable in the case. Those who wish to stay in the Class don't have to do anything now, and will be able to participate in any compensation that may result from the trial or any settlement.

SOUTH CAROLINA: Four Employees Seek Certification For TERI Suit---------------------------------------------------------------Attorneys for four TERI employees suing the South Carolina's retirement system filed papers to seek for class action status for their lawsuit, which covers more than 14,000 employees statewide, The State, SC reports

In their suit, the employees claim the state is violating their contracts by deducting more than 6 percent of their paychecks to put back in the pension plan. They claim that TERI employees previously paid nothing.

Last week, a judge imposed a temporary restraining order against the state, thus barring the deductions, but it only applies to the four plaintiffs. The TERI program allows employees to defer their pensions while they continue to work for five years after retirement.

TOYOBO CO.: Plaintiffs' Firm Hails Bullet Proof Vest Settlement---------------------------------------------------------------Counsel for plaintiffs Allan Kanner & Associates, P.L.L.C. of New Orleans, Louisiana hailed the $29 million class action settlement reached between a certified national class of consumers who purchased Second Chance Ultima, Ultimax, and Tri-Flex vests and Defendants Toyobo Company, Ltd. and Toyobo America, Inc. This settlement does not resolve claims against Second Chance, which is in Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

A nationwide class action was filed against the defendants in relation to several bullet proof vests that used Zylon material. According to the complaints, as early as 2000, the defendants discovered that the Zylon material used in the vests was degrading after exposure to heat, humidity, light, wear, care and in-service flex, resulting in the vests losing their protective qualities. The Complaint alleges that the defendants failed to take prompt and adequate steps to notify purchasers of the defects and continued to sell the vests with knowledge that their representations and warranties concerning the performance characteristics were false. The Complaint further alleges that the defective vests are unsuitable for the intended uses and thus, purchasers are entitled to a refund of the purchase price or replacement, at no cost, with non-Zylon vests that meet or exceed the warranted performance specifications for the Ultima and Ultimax vests, and that are proven, tested and certified by the National Institute of Justice, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (November 7,2004) reports.

In a press statement, the firm said "We would like to thank the various state attorneys general, police fraternal organizations and professional police organizations for their support in achieving this important Settlement. Allan Kanner & Associates also thanks the network of law firms nationwide that have worked hard over the past year and a half to achieve the benefits obtained in this Settlement for law enforcement officers and agencies throughout the United States. We will do everything we can in order to get the benefits provided by this settlement to Class Members as soon as possible. Throughout the process that led to the settlement it was readily apparent that Toyobo's primary interest was to create a fund designed to allow police officers to quickly have the means to receive certified vests so that they can be properly protected."

The proposed settlement comes as part of a private class action by the Southern States Police Benevolent Association ("SSPBA") against Toyobo Co., Ltd. and Toyobo America, Inc., as well as Second Chance Body Armor, Inc. and others. The District Court of Mayes County, Oklahoma, issued a preliminary order approving the settlement with Toyobo Co., Ltd. and Toyobo America, Inc. This settlement does not include Second Chance Body Armor, Inc. Litigation against that company is currently stayed due to its bankruptcy status.

"Through letters to the law enforcement community I am recommending that they review the proposed preliminary settlement carefully with their local prosecutor or legal representative," said Mr. Petro. "My office will continue to update Ohioans about additional information regarding Second Chance."

The settlement provides $29 million to purchasers and owners of Second Chance vests containing ZylonŽ, including Ultima, Ultimax and Triflex model vests. Purchasers and owners of these vests will have three options to choose from if they elect to participate in the settlement.

Purchasers and owners should receive notification by mail soon that will explain the settlement options in detail, along with instructions on how to file a claim to participate in the settlement or how to opt out or object to it. More information can be found at the Website: http://www.zylonvestclassaction.comor by calling the claims administrator by Phone: 1-877-567-2754. Additional information may be found on the SSPBA website: http://www.sspba.org,or by contacting class counsel W. Pitts Carr by Phone: 1-888-755-1649 or Allan Kanner by Phone: 1-800-331-1546.

Summaries of the three settlement options are:

(1) Option 1 - A cash option to receive a pro rata share of the $29 million settlement fund. The amount each officer or agency receives is dependent on the total number of Class Members that participate in the settlement. Each Class Member selecting this option is free to use the money received from the Settlement Fund in any manner they choose.

(2) Option 2 - Class members may elect to use their pro rata share of cash from the Settlement Fund to purchase a replacement vest from Armor Holdings Products, L.L.C. The company will be responsible for all transaction costs associated with the purchase and delivery of these vests.

(3) Option 3 - Class members may elect to receive a nonrefundable credit or voucher from Armor worth $25 more than their pro rata share of cash from the settlement fund to purchase an Armor replacement vest or any other Armor product available from its distributors.

For more details, contact Michelle Gatchell of the Attorney General's Office, by Phone: (614) 466-3840 or visit the Website: http://www.ag.state.oh.us/

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Faces Second Suit Over Tuition Hikes-------------------------------------------------------------- University of California faces a second lawsuit over tuition increases from a group of professional school students who say they should be exempt from increases, The InsideBayArea.com reports.

The class action lawsuit, which was filed in San Francisco Superior Court, alleges breach of contract by UC for raising fees in 2004-05 for previously enrolled professional school students specifically those in advanced graduate programs such as medicine, business and law. Additionally, the suit challenges additional fee increases UC's governing board of regents are expected to approve next week for 2005-06. Those increases, coupled with an earlier one, would raise most professional school fees 10 percent during the next two years and would boost a separate educational fee. According to the suit, professional school students enrolled since fall 2003 should be exempt from the increases because UC literature promised their fees would remain constant throughout their studies.

Danielle Leonard, one of the attorneys representing students in both suits told InsideBayArea.com, "Once the price was set for 2003-04, that's the price they should have been charged for the duration of their enrollment."

The latest suit is similar to another one that was filed in 2003, which seeks to exempt professional school students enrolled prior to December 2002 from higher fees, also because they were promised a constant fee. That case has yet to be heard in court, but an injunction has prevented UC from collecting the higher fees while the case proceeds.

Ironically, UC officials say the injunction is one of the reasons professional students are now facing increases. UC even says that the injunction will cost them more than $20 million by the end of 2005-06. The loss, coupled with state cuts, means schools have to raise fees to help maintain program quality, faculty salaries and financial aid offerings, according to UC spokeswoman Ravi Poorsina. She explains to InsideBayArea.com, "UC does have legal authority to protect the quality of the program through fee increases. I don't know how there could have been any question to entering students in the fall of 2003 that they might (not) be subject to fee increases, judging by the budget discussions that were going on."

VISA USA: Large Retailers Commence Antitrust Lawsuit in S.D. NY---------------------------------------------------------------Credit card company Visa USA, Inc. faces a federal lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by several large retailers, alleging the Company fixed the price and restricted competition in credit-card transactions, the Associated Press reports.

Grocery chain operator Kroger Co. and several other large retailers filed the suit, charging Visa USA Inc. and Visa International Service Association with colluding with member banks to illegally fix prices on interchange fees, which credit card issuers like Visa and MasterCard charge merchants each time a customer pays with a credit card. Kroger also alleged that Visa set rules and restrictions that forbid merchants like Kroger from negotiating lower fees. Interchange fees are a source of hefty profits for the credit card industry. Other plaintiffs in the lawsuit are Ahold USA Inc., Albertson's Inc., Eckerd Corporation, Maxi Drug Inc., Safeway Inc., and Walgreen Co.

Last month, a group of small retailers filed a lawsuit in Connecticut federal court against Visa, MasterCard and several big banks including Bank of America Corporation and Citigroup alleging they set "exorbitant" interchange fees. In response to the suit filed by the smaller retailers in June, Visa said it would vigorously defend its use of interchange fees.

Visa representatives were not immediately available Friday for comment, the Associated Press reports.

According to the ODI, on certain heavy-duty class 8 trucks, equipped with Holland Air Suspension Systems, a transverse beam casting may fracture under normal loads. If a casting breaks when the vehicle is traveling on a roadway there is the potential for pieces of the casting to become projectiles and the suspension's transverse beam may drop down low enough to contact the road surface. This will cause sparks that could potentially ignite and cause a fire.

As a remedy dealers will inspect and replace the defective transverse beam assemblies.

For more details, contact Volvo by Phone: 1-800-528-6586 or the NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or 1-800-424-9153, Web site: http://www.safecar.gov.

WORLDCOM INC.: OK AG Edmondson Satisfied With Ebbers' Sentence--------------------------------------------------------------Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson said the 25-year sentence given in former WorldCom Chief Executive Officer Bernard Ebbers' federal trial satisfies the state's prosecution, and his office will not pursue its case against Mr. Ebbers in state court.

Mr. Edmondson charged Mr. Ebbers, WorldCom and five other executives in August 2003 with 15 counts of violating the Oklahoma Securities Act. He delayed Oklahoma's case against the six executives at the request of United States Attorney David Kelley, whose office charged Mr. Ebbers in March 2004. Mr. Ebbers was convicted March 15 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on one count of securities fraud, one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud and seven counts of filing false documents with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

"Ebbers was sentenced to 25 years," Mr. Edmondson said. "Justice has been served in this case, and Ebbers' federal sentence is sufficient to satisfy the state. In the interests of judicial economy, I see no reason to further pursue Ebbers in state court."

The attorney general said he was confident of convicting Mr. Ebbers in state court, but because of the severity of the federal sentence, his office's financial and personnel resources are better directed at other issues.

"Ebbers could spend the rest of his life in federal prison, and there is no justification for bringing him here to impose a sentence he will never serve," Mr. Edmondson said. "The remaining five defendants in our case, including former Chief Financial Officer Scott Sullivan, will be sentenced federally in the next few weeks. No action will be taken in Oklahoma until those sentences are levied."

Mr. Edmondson said he expects the federal sentences for the remaining defendants will take care of the state's interests as well. "I anticipate adequate sentences in each of these cases," Edmondson said. "We will evaluate each sentence and proceed accordingly."

CRAY INC.: Scott + Scott Provides Securities Litigation Updates---------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Scott + Scott, LLC, which filed a class action in the United States District Court for the District of Washington on behalf of the purchasers of Cray Inc. (Nasdaq: CRAYE; "Cray" or the "Company") securities between July 31, 2003 and May 12, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"), intends to move the Court for lead plaintiff/lead counsel on July 25, 2005.

Cray Inc. is engaged in the design, development, marketing and support of high-performance computer systems, commonly known as supercomputers.

The complaint alleges that Cray's manufacturing processes, internal controls and testing were flawed and ineffective and that Cray's own auditors and Audit Committee knew of the flawed and ineffective internal controls. Further, the complaint alleges that unknown to investors delays in inventory recognition realization and revenue were a recurring and unpredictable feature of Cray's business model. Additionally, it is alleged that during the Class Period, Cray failed to disclose and misrepresented that business metrics having a direct bearing on revenue recognition were increasingly unfavorable and unlikely to improve anytime soon.

On May 9, 2005, Cray revealed that it had failed to include an auditor's opinion on management's assessment of internal control over financial reporting. Moreover, Cray continued to report revenue results adversely impacted by faulty internal controls and past quarter practices. Cray's stock price, which was as high as $13.49 during the Class Period closed on May 12, 2005 at $1.34. On July 1, 2005, Cray issued a Form 8-K stating that it had hired a new independent auditor.

DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Abbey Gardy Provides Litigation Updates-------------------------------------------------------------The firm of Abbey Gardy, LLP, which represents purchasers of DreamWorks Animations SKG, Inc. ("DreamWorks" or the "Company") (NYSE: DWA - News) common stock between October 27, 2004 and May 10, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period") in a class action filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California is providing updates on the status of the litigation.

On May 10, 2005, DreamWorks announced that Shrek 2 did not meet the company's retail sales expectations for the first quarter. The Company reported for the first time that the "sales shortfall resulted in a higher level of returns than expected. As a result, DWA recorded no revenue from Shrek 2 in the quarter other than from licensing and merchandising." On this news the price of DreamWorks stock dropped from $36.50 to close at $32.05.

On July 11, 2005, DreamWorks disclosed that the Securities and Exchange Commission is conducting an informal inquiry into trading of its securities and its first quarter earnings announcement.

DreamWorks also acknowledged that its DVD problem appears to be wider than just one film and one market. Sales of Shrek 2 and DreamWorks other 2004 release out on home video, Shark Tale are falling short of forecasts both at home and overseas. On this news DreamWorks stock dropped to $22.96, its lowest level since the Company's initial public offering in 2004.

LAZARD LTD.: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY--------------------------------------------------------------The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Lazard Ltd. (NYSE: LAZ) publicly traded securities who purchased such securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's false and misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the initial public offering of Lazard shares (the "IPO"), together with those who purchased their shares in the open market between May 4, 2005 and May 12, 2005 inclusive (the "Class Period").

Lazard is a financial advisory and asset management firm. The complaint alleges that Lazard, Goldman Sachs & Co ("Goldman") (the lead underwriter of the IPO), and certain of the Company's officers and directors violated the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a materially false and misleading Registration and Prospectus in connection with the Company's IPO, which was priced at $25 per share, and continuing to conceal material facts about the true value of the Company's stock price after the stock began to trade on the open market.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Registration Statement/Prospectus failed to disclose, among other things, that:

(1) the basis for the $25 price for shares sold in the IPO was to enable defendant Bruce Wasserstein (the Company's Chief Executive Officer) to raise sufficient funds to gain control of the Company from Michel David Weill ("David Weill"), a cousin of the Company's founders;

(2) that prior to the IPO, market demand had indicated that the proper price for the IPO was only $22 per share;

(3) that to "create a market" and thereby manufacture an appearance that Lazard's IPO was fairly and properly priced, Goldman arranged to sell millions of shares to hedge funds with side agreements that they could immediately "flip the shares" and that Goldman would immediately buy them back;

(4) that the Prospectus had failed to adequately and fully comply with S-K Item 505 which requires a prospectus to describe "the various factors considered in determining the offering price" when common shares without an established public trading market are being registered; and

(5) that, in violation of Securities and Exchange Commission regulations, the Registration Statement/Prospectus failed to disclose that Gerardo Braggiotti, the Company's deputy Chairman in Europe and a major rainmaker of new business for the Company, who had only supported the IPO because of a promise (which was later reneged on) that he would be appointed as head of Lazard's European operations, was likely to leave Lazard and/or cause turmoil within the organization as he opposed the IPO and opposed defendant Wasserstein's purchase of David Weill's shares.

On May 12, 2005, only days after the IPO, and right after Goldman stopped buying back the Company's shares, the price of the Company's shares plunged from $25 per share to less than $21 per share.

LAZARD LTD.: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY----------------------------------------------------------------The firm of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Lazard, Ltd. ("Lazard" or the "Company") (NYSE: LAZ) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's false and misleading Registration Statement/Prospectus, inclusive, (the "Class Period") together with those who purchased their shares in the open market between May 4, 2005 and May 12, 2005 inclusive (the "Class Period") against defendants Lazard and certain officers of the Company. The case name is Sved v. Lazard, et al.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements throughout the Class Period that had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities. The complaint further alleges that defendants knew, that the Company's registration statement/prospectus was misleading when issued because defendants failed to disclose the following material adverse facts:

(1) that to "create a market" and thereby manufacture an appearance that Lazard's IPO was fairly and properly priced, Goldman arranged to sell millions of shares to hedge funds with side agreements that they could immediately "flip the shares" and that Goldman would immediately buy them back;

(2) that Goldman entered into side agreements whereby several hedge funds agreed to "theoretically" buy the shares in the IPO so that the IPO would be considered "consummated" and Goldman could receive its underwriting fee, but again with the understanding the hedge funds could immediately sell the shares back to Goldman -- without affecting their standing in future IPOs;

(3) that a true market for the IPO at a price of $27 per share did not exist. In fact, the $25 price that was dictated by defendant Wasserstein did not exist. If the IPO took place at any price below $27 per share, defendant Wasserstein would not be able to fund the acquisition of David-Weill's equity stake by only using the proceeds of the IPO. At $25 per share an additional 3.5 millions shares were sold to effectuate the IPO.

This scheme:

(i) deceived the investing public regarding Lazard's business, operations, management and the intrinsic value of Lazard common stock;

(ii) enabled the defendants to raise $855 million in the Company's IPO;

(iii) enabled the defendants to raise $1.1 billion in equity security units issued by the Company;

(iv) enabled defendant Wasserstein to acquire David-Weill's shares using the proceeds received in the IPO; and

(v) caused plaintiff and other members of the Class to purchase Lazard publicly traded securities at artificially inflated prices.

NET2PHONE, INC.: Bull & Lifshitz Lodges Securities Suit in DE-------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Bull & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a securities class action in the State of Delaware, Court of Chancery, New Castle County on behalf of owners of the common stock of Net2Phone, Inc. ("Net2Phone" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:NTOP).

The Complaint alleges that IDT allegedly owns securities representing approximately 41% of Net2Phone's outstanding equity securities and approximately 57% of the total voting power of Net2Phone's outstanding equity securities. IDT intends to make an offer to purchase all outstanding shares of common stock of Net2Phone not owned by IDT or its affiliates, at a price of $1.70 per share, net to the sellers in cash, without interest.

The Complaint alleges that the price of $1.70 per share offered to the class members is unconscionable, unfair and grossly inadequate consideration and has been the object of manipulation because, among other things:

(1) the intrinsic value of the stock of Net2Phone is materially in excess of $1.70 per share, giving due consideration to the possibilities of growth and profitability of Net2Phone in light of its business, earnings and earnings power, present and future;

(2) the $1.70 per share price is inadequate and offers an inadequate premium to the public stockholders of Net2Phone; and

(3) the $1.70 per share price is not the result of arm's length negotiations but was fixed arbitrarily by IDT to "cap" the market price of Net2Phone stock, as part of a plan for defendants to obtain complete ownership of Net2Phone assets and business at the lowest possible price.

Additionally, the Complaint alleges that the negative revelations concerning the Company's lack of internal controls was calculated to depress the Company's stock in order to facilitate the Proposed Transaction on behalf of IDT.

POSSIS MEDICAL: Zimmerman Reed Files Securities Fraud Suit in MN----------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Zimmerman Reed PLLP initiated, along with Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP ("Lerach Coughlin"), a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, on behalf of investors in Possis Medical, Inc. (NASDAQ:POSS) who purchased common stock on the open market between September 25, 2002 and August 24, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The shareholder bringing the lawsuit is a resident of Orange County, CA who purchased Possis securities on the open market during the Class Period.

The Complaint alleges that Possis and certain of its officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 by issuing a series of materially false statements during the Class Period, thereby artificially inflating the price of Possis securities and inflicting damages on investors.

The shareholder seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Class members. During the course of the Class Period, the stock traded as high as $34/share and has recently been trading around $10/share. If you bought Possis common stock between September 25, 2002 and August 24, 2004, and you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must make a motion to the Court no later than August 2, 2005. Any member of the purported Class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through Zimmerman Reed and Lerach Coughlin or other counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent Class member.

STOCKERYALE INC.: Rosen Law Firm Sets Lead Plaintiff Deadline-------------------------------------------------------------The Rosen Law Firm reminds investors that they have until July 24, 2005 to seek appointment by the Court as Lead Plaintiff in the class action lawsuit filed by the Rosen Law Firm on behalf of purchasers of StockerYale Inc. (Nasdaq:STKR) (the "Company"), securities during the period from April 19, 2004 through November 9, 2004.

The case, Libert v. Blodgett et al, 05-cv-00177-JM, is pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire, Warren B. Rudman U.S. Courthouse, 55 Pleasant Street, Room 110, Concord, NH.

The complaint charges that StockerYale and certain of its officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act by issuing false and misleading press releases on April 19 and April 21, 2004 in which the Company falsely announced that StockerYale had entered into a contract with BAE Systems to develop a laser for a missile countermeasure system to protect commercial planes. Additionally, the press releases misrepresented that StockerYale was supplying the lasers as part of a Department of Homeland Security project. In fact, StockerYale was not involved in any Department of Homeland Security project and was not developing a laser missile countermeasure system for commercial planes.

UNITED AMERICAN: Rosen Law Firm Sets Lead Plaintiff Deadline------------------------------------------------------------The Rosen Law Firm reminds investors that they have until July 26, 2005 to seek appointment by the Court as Lead Plaintiff in the class action lawsuit filed by the Rosen Law Firm on behalf of purchasers of United American Healthcare Corporation (the "Company") (Nasdaq:UAHC) common stock during the period from May 26, 2000, through April 22, 2005.

The complaint charges that United American Healthcare and certain of its officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act by failing to disclose the Company's improper business and financial relationship with a legislator having oversight of UAHC's Healthplan. According to the complaint, this relationship was in violation of the Company's contract with Tennessee and has caused the State to place UAHC's Healthplan under administrative supervision. The complaint alleges that as a result, investors could not understand or accurately assess the extent to which UAHC's ongoing operations, reported revenue, and income were dependent upon the improper political payments scheme.

A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in eachWednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissionsvia e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuringnews on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of targetasbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-relatedliabilities.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300.